Dismissed

A.No. 167 of 2021 & Ia No. 453 & 452 of 2022 of Bls Ecotech Ltd. v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jvvnl). & Anr.

APTEL7 Jul 2022A.No. 167 of 2021 & IA No. 453 & 452 of 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BLS ECOTECH Ltd challenged penalties for alleged excess electricity drawal. The Tribunal upheld lower authorities' findings that drawal exceeded admissible limits, dismissing the appeal against penalties levied by the distribution licensee.

What did the court decide?

The appeal along with pending applications is dismissed.

What the court decided

A.No. 167 of 2021 & Ia No. 453 & 452 of 2022 of Bls Ecotech… — Banking and Recovery | APTEL (2022)

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction) COURT-II

¶2

APPEAL NO. 167 OF 2021 & IA NOS. 453 & 452 OF 2022

¶3

Dated: 07.07.2022 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba, Officiating Chairperson Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member

¶4

In the matter of:

¶5

BLS ECOTECH LTD SP-179, Riico Industrial Area, Kaharani, Bhiwadi-301019 Rajasthan

¶6

….. Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED (JVVNL)

¶9

Through its Managing Director Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur-302005 Rajasthan

¶10

2. RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

¶11

Through Its Secretary Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan Near State Motor Garage Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302 005 Rajasthan …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant (s) : Mr. P.N. Bhandari Mr. ParamhansSahani Counsel for the Respondent (s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Ms. Archana Pathak Mr. Kumar Prashant Mr. Avnish Dave for R-1

¶12

J U D G M E N T (Oral)

¶13

PER HON’BLE MR. R.K. GAUBA, OFFICIATING CHAIRPERSON

¶14

The appellant is an open access consumer as also a consumer

¶15

drawing electricity from the distribution licensee i.e. first respondent/Jaipur

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Appeal No. 167 of 2021

¶18

Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited for purposes of its industrial unit located in Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The dispute essentially pertains to the drawal of electricity on 18.03.2016 and 02.04.2016 it statedly being in excess and thus having resulted in levy, inter alia, of certain penalties. It had earlier been brought before the second respondent/State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC), the decision taken were upon being brought to challenge before the State Commission by petition registered as RERC/1792/2020. The said petition resulted in Order dated 07.12.2020 whereby the Commission declined to interfere with the determination of SLDC by its Order dated 15.07.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Tribunal by this appeal.

¶19

In the fact finding inquiry made by SLDC, as has been endorsed by the State Commission by the impugned order, it has been concluded that the appellant had drawn electricity to the extent of 1685 KW in excess as against admissible drawal of 1185 KW. Similarly, on 02.04.2016, the appellant had indulged in drawal of 1603 KW of electricity in excess against the admissible drawal of 859 KW.

¶20

3. The appellant challenges the impugned decision of SLDC, as upheld

¶21

by the State Commission by the impugned order, primarily submitting that there is no question of over drawal so long as the consumer remains within

¶22

the limits of its total sanctioned contract demand. Reliance is placed on

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Appeal No. 167 of 2021

¶25

Regulation 26(3) of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms &

¶26

Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 which reads thus:

¶27

“26. Compliance and Grid Discipline:

¶28

(3) The open access consumer shall restrict the sum of his total drawal from all sources including open access and Distribution Licensee up to the total sanctioned contract demand with the Distribution Licensee.

¶29

Provided that open access may be allowed over and above the contract demand to a consumer who sources power both by captive generation and Discom to the extent of captive power supply subject to availability of transmission and/or distribution system as the case may be. Provided further that long term open access may be allowed over and above the contract demand to the extent of sanctioned open access capacity.”

¶30

The findings returned by the two lower forums on the issue of drawal

¶31

of power in excess of admissible limits are based, inter alia, on communication given by SLDC by email at 17:40 hrs on 18.03.2016 revising the schedule. The appellant has pleaded ignorance in such regard which submission we are unable to accept. The finding of facts having been subjected to another scrutiny by the State Commission, we find no good reason to interfere with the same, there being no good reason shown in support. The Regulation 26(3) referred to above is the general rule but subject to grid discipline enforced by SLDC which has the power to revise the schedule and put restrictions on drawal.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

Appeal No. 167 of 2021

¶34

In the facts and circumstances, we find no merit or substance in the

¶35

appeal. The appeal along with pending applications is dismissed accordingly.

¶36

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) Technical Member

¶37

(Justice R.K. Gauba) Officiating Chairperson

¶38

vt/mkj

¶39

Page 4 of 4

¶40

Appeal No. 167 of 2021

A.No. 167 of 2021 & Ia No. 453 & 452 of 2022 of Bls Ecotech Ltd. v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jvvnl). & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A.No. 167 of 2021 & Ia No. 453 & 452 of 2022 of Bls Ecotech Ltd. v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jvvnl). & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.No. 197 of 2015 of Tgv Sraac Limited. Versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. & Ors.

A.No. 182 of 2015 of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission. & Anr.

A.No. 209 of 2019 of Inland Power Ltd. Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. & Anr.

A.No. 71 of 2016 of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited. Versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission

A.No. 48 of 2022 of Balaji Naik a. Versus Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited. & Anr.

Dfr No. 378 of 2021 of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.